Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/twobithistory Help us Grow! Share our Videos on Reddit (or your Favorite Social Media) Visit our Website: www.twobithistory.com
Here are my corrections of your history: 1) Min 0:52 Tucker was not a talented salesman turned inventor. There was much more in Tuckers early days, starting fixing cars and selling them, racing with a guy named Henry and winning several championships, (also with rear engine cars), earning one of the first engineering degrees through the mail, and starting out in car companies as a mail carrier, and working up. He may have done some sales, but I don't think that function lasted for long. He wanted to work in every department to learn. 2) Min 2:22 Not a correction, but Patton would have loved the Tucker tank. 3) Min 3:50 Not correcting again, just a comment. Getting the building from the government was the biggest mistake he made and it was pulled from him breech of contract. 4) Min 4:46 He was an engineer, both in practice and formal. He just never worked as an engineer for a company, (to the best of my knowledge). How important is incremental change when you know what you are doing? The car was good. Maybe the best of its day. 5) Min 6:20 He was such a poor business man, he had to be destroyed by economic fascism. Of course marx would say he was a terrible business man, but the Car and more might be alive today if it were not for economic fascism. 6) Min 8:30 His conspiracy claims "did not work"? That means justice was not done son as the conspiracy is reality. The jury agreed, all of them. 7) 9:14 I will pass on the rest of this opinion. We only have 2 car companies in the land of opportunity today, and outsourcing our production to communism negates anything your brainwashed mind can tell us.
Tucker was a genius way ahead of it’s time! That’s what the big three and the government didn’t like! I bet you if the tucker car company was being built today if would be like Tesla! A car way ahead than his competitors! I would buy one in heartbeat 💗
Nah, Preston's problems were more political than anything. Well, political and financial. I always loved the line from the movie where Jeff Bridges says something to the effect of "...and I haven't got a dime to build it with!". That sort of foreshadows the whole ordeal. He should have tried to raise more capital through legitimate ways, probably should've set his sights on a more affordable factory, and definitely should not have made accessories for cars that didn't yet exist.
@@jasoncarpp7742 Don't forget, Preston had a lot of friends in Detroit. Many of the folks on his board of Directors came from the Big Three to work for Tucker. Not to mention many parts used on the car came from other suppliers. The door hardware is Kaiser/Willys. The air cleaner is a flathead Cadillac piece. The steering wheels were a gift from Ford until Tucker could produce his own. Not to mention many of the other pieces sourced from Bendix, Stewart-Warner, Carter, Saginaw and many other Big-Three owned subsidiaries. Tucker was no fool. Why design your own part when you can use a cheap, plentiful, off-the-shelf piece? All manufacturers do that today; many even swap parts around.
What is a savy business man in your view,---a guy who makes deals with politicians? those are the guys who say he was not a savy business man. Was Ford a savy business man,---or could he hire them? Tucker was a proper business man, with the correct philosophies for a free enterprise free society. That free enterprise free society ended with government intervention, so those savy business men could not really make it in the free market, with guys like Tucker as potential competition. If you are getting beat in a sport,---just bribe the ref. savy!
@@TwoBitHistory That question is hard to answer. So many factors over time. But I do know this. we drive what government wants us to drive today,---and they really don't want us driving. Gut your catalytic converters, and you will get at least 75,000 more miles from your engine on the average. Restrictive exhaust builds up engine heat a lot.
@@EarthSurferUSA Henry Ford was "savvy" in his HEYDEY of 1900-1925 in terms of building a decent car that literally put the USA on wheels. But it wasn't just the clever engineering that made the Model T relatively cheap to produce, it was Ford's relentless pursuit to make automotive mass production more efficient. He also recognized the skullduggery that went on, and used his profit to vertically integrate so Ford could not be strangled by competitors taking his materials or union organizers, if they couldn't organize Ford itself, could target his critical suppliers. It was Ford vessels plying the Great Lakes that brought iron ore and coal to the Rouge plant. The same plant had its own steel mill. Ford even owned the forestry rights that supplied the wood that was used in car bodies and other parts in those times. He owned shares in rubber plantations abroad and copper mines in Utah and Arizona to ensure electrical parts would keep coming. An analysis conducted by Ford's own industrial engineering staff verified that from arrival of raw materials at the river docks of the Rouge plant to a finished Model T required no more than 33 hours. Even packing crates for shipping parts were designed to be disassembled into frames that went into the cars themselves! But, as so often happens, Henry Ford got old, and the world changed and he didn't. It was his disenchantment with the FDR administration, especially over their failure to stop union violence in the 1937 strikes, as he saw it, and his Fascist sympathies (he also had ventures in the USSR, including at what became the Kama river tank engine factory) that caused him to make misfire after misfire until he passed on in 1943. Ford BARELY made a profit on its WWII government contracts, while the other outfits were making a "killing" (no pun intended). It was only when grandson Henry Ford II (son of Edsel, and we know what became of his namesake car make) fought off a hostile takeover and took over the reins that Ford made a remarkable comeback.
The Big Three had nothing to do with Tuckers' demise; matter-of-factly, they helped Tucker by providing off-the-shelf parts! The steering wheel is surplus Lincoln, the inside door hardware is Kaiser-Willys, the tail lights are Dodge. Tuckers two biggest enemies were Otto Kerner and Homer Ferguson. Those two men went out of their way to sabotage Tucker in any way they could. Thirdly, Tucker screwed himself by pissing off the SEC. You can't sell dealerships and parts to cars that don't exist. There was no conspiracy. It was all politics.
@@martyzielinski2469 You know, I've had that conversation with several people, and the most conclusive answer we came up with was: "maybe". From all accounts, he was generally a very likeable man. But everybody becomes a saint when they die. It's like, when a strong-willed person surrounds themselves with weak-minded people, they may describe him as a leader. But when equally strong-willed people butt heads, they see each-other as a nuisance. I often wonder if the people who made Preston's life hell were those same equally strong-willed people who wanted their own way and not Preston's. And if you step on strong-willed, powerful toes.... you've just made some interminable enemies. Homer Ferguson was one of those men. The SEC's lawyer (who's name escapes me at the moment) was another and there was another fellow over at War Assets that didn't like Tucker. Those three very powerful, strong-willed men had it out for ol' Pres for whatever reason.
@@tusharrajvanshi1043 I suspect he was. I think Justice Scalia was murdered also during the obama administration. I had a childhood friend who died as a homeless man, killed by his friend when they got in a drunken fight, (Duane had big problems with that). Scalia mysteriously died at some party as if he was poisoned with dinner, rushed to get embalmed, and no autopsy was done for a Supreme court Judge under fishy circumstances. Duane got an autopsy. He very well may have been murdered, especially if he wanted to get even legally. I think he was the type of man to make legal moves against those in government who destroyed his company that he spent all his life with. I see him being murdered with a 90% probability. It is disgusting.
One other thing that may point to murder,---is his family was never heard from publicly, (to my knowledge), ever again. He had a big family. None of them told the story. Same with the Scalia family.
@@TwoBitHistory technically tesla was a failure, according to standard social paradigms. But tesla and Tucker both changed the world with there incites, which is why they were destroyed by the powers of the corporatocricy. They were without the ability innovate and knew it. They had to destroy the Genious's so they could aquire the new technology and make more and more money. Because after all, that's what everyone worships, the mono eye.
@@TwoBitHistory "Not saying cronyism doesn’t still happen" That is government intervention in our businesses. Show me an industry where that is not crony capitalism today. Even the pot heads gave their industry to government.
I love the Tucker 48 it was a very fine automobile but not to burst everybody's bubble the Tucker 48 was not the first car to have safety glass nor to have safety belts but Tucker wanted to make them to be the industry-standard and not an option
I doubt Tucker had any interest in making safety stuff an industry standard. It was a selling point for him. I wonder if he actually helped open the door for more government regulation though. Just a thought I just had.
Thanks for the kind comments. It takes time to grow a channel, but we’re working on more videos at the moment. Maybe Trader Joe’s or Howard Hughes are in the near future?
The only American car that inspired me... A US version of the Citroen DS... Both were futuristic cars designed to have a flat 6 engine. Tucker engine in back with rear wheel drive, Citroen front mid engine with front wheel drive. I wish Tucker and Citroen got together to give the DS the engine it deserved.. The Citroen did have power front disc brakes, power steering, unique suspension, progressive crumple zones and safety cell, aerodynamics, semi automatic gearbox and in 1967 turning and self levelling headlights. It was produced from 1955 to 1975.. The big difference was that Citroen had been mass producing cars from 1919. The 2CV and GS were also maverick masterpieces... Andre Citroen was a maverick promoter, a dreamer and a gambler. For many years the Eiffel Tower was a giant Citroen advertising sign. Hey.. Another Tucker, but without government, press and competition beating him to a pulp. Citroen went bankrupt developing the radical 1934 Traction Avant. Michelin bought the company. Very nearly went bankrupt again with the DS in 1955, and did go bankrupt a second time in 1974 with the CX and SM (Sports Maserati).and Comotor Wankel rotary. Bought by Peugeot. Last great cars were the BX, Xantia, XM and C6.. Then got the boring disease.. Now focusing on comfort. Finally.
I recently watched again "Tucker a man and his Dream" and couldn't help but to see all the parallels between what happened to Tucker and what is continuing to happen to Elon Musk. The biggest difference being that Elon had success with start up business before and acquired a fortune with it. Also he has greater transparency through social media as well as the active players against him aren't as powerful as they once were.
Not to take anything away from Elon Musk, but it seems like the politicians are now in bed with start up companies by giving out tax credits. The established manufacturers are not as powerful today but the politicians are. Cronyism is still a problem.
Tesla would not be profitable with out government subsidies and favors. I have never even seen one on the road. Nobody gets into that industry, (and many more), with out the blessings of government today. That is why we only have 2 left,--in the land of opportunity.
You should do a video about all of the startups that were taken down. Delorean? What about that guy with the carburetor in the 70s that could get mass gas mileage.
I have worked on cars, and engines all my life, from lawnmowers to V12 and V16 Diesel engines! There is not, never has been, and never will be a carburetor that gets a 100 miles per gallon! First off, carburetion can't compete with fuel injection! Second fuel deliver is not the final determination of economy. Mass &weight & velocity and resistance are the final determinant! So if you want to drive a tissue paper box, shaped like a torpedoes, one passenger, single cylinder engine, with a big flywheel, and hit and miss engine, I'll get you a hundred miles to the gallon! Not being snotty, but I have listened to this myth since I was 13.
@@michaelmonaghan2717 You missed the main reason. Gas and air have to be the correct ratio, (stoichiometric mixture, about 13 parts air to 1 part fuel for gas) to not go lean or rich. Less gas means less air needed, and less power. Sure, the carb may get a scooter get 100 mpg if it makes no more than 2hp with a person under 100lbs on it on flat ground. Carboration can compete with fuel injection. It is more sensitive to air quality because the jetting has to be changed for weather conditions, where the engine management can automatically adjust the fuel/air mixture. But a carb does not have all those electronics that the heat (especially the extra engine heat cats can force on the engine). I have a 2013 Jeep with poly designed cats, with heat wrecking havoc on the electronics. I would gladly replace that engine system with a old engine and trans. I actually modify 2-stroke engines for a living, and I respect your professional differences. :)
@@EarthSurferUSA Hence why the 70 mpg, or hell, the 100 mpg carburetors, is a MYTH and a scam. As you point out about the stochiometric equation of the typical Otto four-stroke engine, there's an optimal air-fuel ration, and it's easy to predict how much, under IDEAL conditions, fuel would be required for a given engine speed (mated to the gear box that propels the vehicle), as the engine itself is little more than a self-powered air pump. What also would be "ideal" is that the products of combustion would be just carbon dioxide and water. As you well pointed out, a well-tuned carburetor can deliver fuel economy and performance as a fuel-injection setup, indeed, many "performance" engines are still built with carbs! The actual "holy grail" of a gasoline or diesel engine would be to construct an "adiabatic" engine, or one that loses no external heat. This would be possible IF materials could be found to provide acceptable wear characteristics as with cast iron and/or aluminum and also endure the considerable temperatures generated during combustion. Furthermore, the engine cycle would have to use a greater amount of the heat available to generate power during the power stroke, and/or recoup it from the exhaust gases (intercooling and turbocharging). The maximum possible efficiency would be achieved when the engine would remain cool to the touch and the exhaust gas would leave at ambient temperature! Would it be worthwhile to try to develop such a fantastic engine? Probably not, the challenges are formidable. BUT...never say "die", who's to say in time what new materials or engine control technology may get closer and closer to that ideal?
The US ended the war facing a return to depression. The economy had achieved full utilisation by exporting its output as war goods funded by war bonds. This obviously stopped with the end of the war. The rest of the world had no US dollars to buy US exports. The driving motivation for the Marshall Plan was to give Europe dollars to solve this “dollar gap”. (Read Kolko “The Limits of Power”).
The movie, though entertaining, spewed a bunch of MYTHS about why the Tucker failed. There were quite a few competitors to the "Big Three", and in fact, Ford, thanks to mismanagement by the "old man", who was well behind the times and mentally ailing, was almost on the verge of bankruptcy itself post-war. The US was transitioning back to peacetime production, and getting materials was a problem for all car makers, not just Tucker. But even with a $20M IPO in 1947, it just wasn't enough to launch an entirely new auto company, especially with just ONE product. Preston Tucker may have been a brilliant engineer, but he simply did not understand the automotive business. He would have been better off to sell his idea to an existing firm that was "hungry", like Hudson, and be part of its development team, than do it on his own. It was simply impossible to build and market what was, for its time, a rolling science fair, and had he somehow solved the considerable financial and managerial problems his ill-fated venture faced and actually been able to mass produce the Tucker '48, it likely would have ended up an automotive "one-hit wonder"...i.e., people with money (the car was not cheap, and given the lack of economy of scale, it couldn't be) who could appreciate it's features would have bought them...for about two to three years, tops. Then, with Detroit finally able to re-tool in the post-war era and put out new models, the Tucker Corp. would have had to upgrade the '48 and/or develop new models. Given its huge financial challenges, that would have been unlikely. So either Tucker would have gone under anyway, or it would have been bought up by a competitor, as the other "minor" makers were also being squeezed out by the "Big Three" and were looking to merge and/or acquire in order to survive. Who's to say a briefly successful Tucker 48 might not have continued as part of, say, Studebaker-Packard, or AMC when it was formed from the merger of Nash-Kelvinator and Hudson in 1954? It's easy to swallow the "Big Corporations are EVIL, man.." mantra, but the truth is that the entire idea to attempt to break into the car business was hare-brained from the start. Yes, the Tucker 48 was very much ahead of its time, and though individually many of its "innovations" had been tried before, none were ever put forth in an innovative package that was Preston Tucker's car. The only problem was...it took a LOT more money to do what he wanted to do than he could raise, and the prospects of the Tucker Corporation turning a profit were, well, kinda dismal.
"He did not understand the automotive business"? Let me define that, since you missed it. No, he did not understand economic fascism existed in the USA,---or else he never would have gotten the building from government. You do know that building was taken from him breech of contract tight? You do know that if government did not get involved with business, that the big 3 could not have gotten congress to destroy Tucker, and they would have had to compete, right? You do understand that Honda created a manufacturing dynasty after WW2 in Japan right? Who really won WW2?
@@EarthSurferUSA You disregard the actual history and facts involved, as evidenced by your citation of "economic fascism". Such is the self-delusion of most leftists. Had you ever considered (1) HOW, if the bureaucrats, and "Corporate Fascists" were doing all they could to "torpedo" (pun intended) the Tucker '48, how did Tucker get the Chicago Dodge plant in the first place? This impressive facility had been built to produce aircraft engines, and NOT, as the film erroneously assumed, Dodge trucks for the war effort. It also was NOT the "largest auto factory" of its time, though it was for a time the largest single building in terms of its footprint in the world. (2) Second, how was Tucker able to raise the capital AND hire the talent that he had? The film mentions nothing of the efforts of George Lawson, who was the initial designer for the 'Tucker 48 and responsible for its rear-engine layout. Also, Alex Tremulis wasn't just some "kid", recently discharged from the Army, looking for his big break with Tucker, he already had an impressive resume in industry when Tucker hired him away from a prominent industrial design firm. The "Big Three" weren't so much concerned about destroying Tucker, he was little more than a gadfly. They were more concerned about taking out the "small fry", as the fictional gangster Bela Oxmyx of Star Trek's "A Piece of the Action" deemed his unmentioned lesser rivals. Ford, which at the time had slipped to well behind GM and at times Chrysler, was financially on the ropes and ripe for a takeover ("White Knight"). The remaining well-known names, Nash, Hudson, Studebaker, Packard, Willys-Overland, and Kaiser, were no longer viable of themselves, but had they combined (Nash and Hudson DID, and survived as AMC until 1987, and Packard and Studebaker also did, but only until 1963, as they departed the auto business altogether in favor of their other ventures), but a combination of them ALL, along with the maverick Tucker, might have proved a formidable "Fourth", much as FOX has proved against ABC, CBS, and NBC. It's wasn't so much that the "Big Three" conspired against Tucker, it was that the Truman administration was still continuing both rationing of foods and consumer goods well after the war, ostensibly to curb inflation and/or prevent a post-war depression. In reality, it was about having a political stranglehold on American industry, so there might have been something to the "Fascism" you mentioned, just not as you supposed it was. For example, the American homemaker still had to use ration stamps to buy sugar until November 1947! It was in this atmosphere that opportunists like MI Senator Homer S. Ferguson could wield much power and inflict damage to those that didn't support them or got in their way. Please keep in mind that the GOP had captured both House and Senate in the 1946 mid-term elections and were quite willing to turn the tables on their political and corporate rivals. Tucker was simply one of the casualties of this backlash, though I'm certain that even had he not been politically persecuted, his car make would, at minimum, have been bought out, likely by Nash or Packard, in an effort to acquire the line and the name, or have gone under anyway.
I gotta give pressure from the big three a no sale , There were nine major auto companies post war and materials were hard to get, the steering wheel in a Tucker were left over Lincoln parts Chrysler was still hung over from its advanced car of the future ( The Air flow) Ford was undergoing massive restructuring after Henry died, and GM could have easily just backed a dump truck full of cash and bought him out , The SEC did seem to have a personal beef with him, often left untold is the prosecutor later went to jail, and by 1950 the suspension and transmission design were not yet final and Tuckers had major over heating issues
Tucker was rear engine, with swing axles, much like the Corvair. It was also Unsafe At Any Speed, (thank you Ralph Nader), and could have led to safety legislation earlier than the seventies.
Tesla is an electric car that progressive/communist government wants us to drive. They get favors. Like any green company, (which government also subsidizes to exist), Tesla would not exist on it's own.
I remember as a kid the big deal when he set up his works in what is now Ford City. As I might remember he was selling products that he really did not have.
He made the cars per the contract, and they exist. Looks like fake news was believed a lot back then too. Thanks a lot. Your generation should have revolted, but like today on the TV, we don't understand what we are looking at.
You don't have to be smart and everything to be smart in something spectacular like Tucker was you hire people who do the job for you that are a little smarter in that area I wish to God Tucker had survived he really was magnificent
If we forget Tucker's legal issues and any possible collusion from the Big 3 and just look at Tucker's car company itself, it would have died by the mid-1950s. He was entering the car market with little capital at a time when the Big 3 not only already had deep amounts of amassed capital, but were going to begin an era of enormous profitability for them. He was simply trying to source steering wheels from Ford and engines from Franklin when Ford, GM, and Chrysler were all already working on developing new technologies like electric windows, cruise control, and air conditioning. He had one design for one sedan. If he'd have been able to go into full production by the time the first full production Tucker 48 rolled off the line, his designers would already need to have finalized an update to that design ready to go in a couple years. Then he'd need a coupe, a truck, and other variations. There was no way he'd be able to make a long term stand in the market without growing his product line substantially, and quickly. Besides, his timing was probably the worst. In 1948 most production cars still had inline 6 or 8 cylinder motors. They were not very powerful, so at the time of production Tucker's Franklin-sourced flat 6 was a competitive motor. But the Big 3 were ready for horsepower wars with their V8s by 1955 and there's no way Tucker would have had a competitive V8 engine developed himself by that time. Absolutely no way. He'd have been left in the dust by 1955 when GM's 265 Chevy small block, Ford's 239 Y-block, and Chrysler's Hemi would have all left the Tucker in the dust. There's also the matter of that Cord/Auburn derived transmission. It's very temperamental and experts suggest Tucker would have had a major recall issue if he'd have gone to full production with it. It uses cables and electric solenoids to "pre-select" each gear, then you engage the gear by hitting the clutch after pre-selecting it. It's a very overly complicated system when at the time a simple 3 or 4 speed mechanical manual with a clutch would have been perfectly fine and reliable.
Preston Tucker won the case thrown on.him by the FEDS on answer to the big 3 request, Ford, Chrysler, and GM. Tucker got help from another FEDS victim, Howard Huges and built engines designed for Hughes Helicopters for the Tucker 48 car. After winning the case, Preston Tucker died of cardiac arrest.
I am not so sure about that last sentence. I think there is a high probability that if he was seeking legal action after his case, to go after the state pricks who destroyed his company,---they probably would have had him killed. A big family too, not a peep about the story from them, like a gag.
They knew they would have to spend a bajillion dollars to implement all of the things he was including. It was easier to use the government to take him down.
He was DECADES ahead of his time! Ge actually CARED about innovation and safety. The "BIG 3" were correct to fear him and his innovations. They would ALL eventually be adopted as required standard equipment by the US government in ALL USA made cars.
He was not ahead of his time. He was into car racing with a guy named Henry Miller, and they won quite a few championships before Miller died in a crash. There were components that others cars did not have,---but nothing was new, (except the turning head light). The government should have stayed out of it.
He made the cars, found innocent of all counts in court. He fulfilled his obligations, and the building to taken from him breech of contract. He was not ripping off anybody,---but you got your liberty stolen from you. You can cheer all you want---into communism. Sue your schools,---or your life will suck.
every one of the 48's had donor parts from the Big 3 (motor/suspension parts from GM and Chrysler, steering wheels from Ford)...hard to buy in to the conspiracy theory. Also, his bids for the steel mills were rejected because he hadnt paid rent on the factory and was in violation of the rental agreement when he placed the bids.
I hear that, but I have seen no evidence of it. Even if some is true, I am sure those smaller decisions were not made by the heads, the chairs. Back then, a foreman could have made those decisions.
If not ruined by RED TAPE WE ALL WOULD BE DRIVING A TUCKER TODAY. THE DESIGN WAS WEDGE SHAPE WOULD GO TO THE RIGHT OR LEFT AND NEVER HEAD ON. THE CYCLOPS LIGHT WOULD FOLLOW THE CAR AROUND BENDS. 28, MILES TO A GALLON. INNOVATIVE----TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.
The world is controled by people who want it all! So even if you invent something that is ground breaking it will be put under if it takes money from them in the long run.
A few years ago they had a Tucker gathering at Pebble Beach. While on the Tour D'Elegance, one of them dropped an axle (do a GOOGLE search for the pics of the axle on the road). I stopped to help in my lowly (but fully drivable) '55 Pontiac, and the owner (I believe the pres. of the club) was rude as could be. I took great joy in leaving them in a cloud of non-emissions controlled exhaust. That experience aside, I think Tuckers are one of the most over rated cars. If they'd been made in larger numbers, no one would pay any more attention to them then any other production American car of the time.
You mean GM would be happy to have Tucker come along with a revolutionary car, the biggest mfg plant in the world and tons of excitement? I'm sure they would do nothing about it with their politicians.
'just finished watching the Tucker movie - free on utube I'm sure everyone involved has an opinion on Tucker / gov. / big 3 at this point we just don't know but soon the truth will be shouted from the mountain tops (this is in reference to Judgement Day / be ready)
We know, if we know what we are looking at. The results of government in bed with business is over 100 years old in the USA. We think it is the way it has to be, and we don't know what we are looking at. The USA started this way, based on individual liberty protected by law, and free people creating the free enterprise system. It was almost Laissez-Faire, (no regulation, no income taxes, and a good court system to keep people from screwing each other.). But government still had some control, and it grows until our liberty and right to do business fades away. The result eventually is government control over everything, or communism. That is what we are looking at. I say we are about 90% into communism today, in relation to Laissez-Faire and a free society.
This situation has been demonstrated too many times. There is no such thing as a true free enterprise system. Wall Street and the SEC are all that matters.
The Corvair taught the American auto manufacturers that the rear-engine, rear-drive arrangement is a horrible, no good, very bad idea, owing to the mass bias and the handling characteristics that result. These characteristics might have been tolerated had drivers been taught what to do when the tail wags the dog, but they weren't. So if the Torpedo had been put in mass production, manufacturers and drivers would have learned their lesson about rear-engine cars a decade sooner.
@@TwoBitHistory The Corvair would have been safer than the typical car of the era had they just turned the seats around. Then you have a front-engine, front-drive car, millions of these have been built and drivers of poor to average ability do well in them
The Tucker never made it into mass production that consumer experience may have mirrored what happened with the Corvair. However, the assertion that the RR configuration is a bad idea is utter NONSENSE. Ever heard of a little car from Germany called the VW Beetle?
@@TwoBitHistory Ralph Nader is a political HACK and a glib con artist, who wrote to sell books after he couldn't get hired as an attorney by any reputable law firm out of law school. His "findings" about the Corvair were disproven. The man never even owned a car nor even had a driver's license, so that anyone took him seriously seems incredulous. It should also be kept in mind that GM was already taken over by the "suits", who put an end to the automotive innovations, not only of the Corvair itself, but also similar product lines like the Pontiac Tempest, Buick Skylark, and Olds F-85. John Delorean had taken the Chevy Six which was to be the base engine for the then mid-sized Pontiac Tempest, and modified it into an belt-driven OHC Six that rivalled V8s for power, being well ahead of its time. Once DeLorean was "kicked upstairs" to head Chevrolet, that engine was nixed as well. Only two model years after the Corvair debuted, Chevy had "gone back to the drawing board" and put out the Compact Chevy II (later became the Nova), with a more conventional FR layout with the Chevy Six (there was even a 153 cube Four based on that Six available) as standard and later the famed Chevy Small Block V8. The concern wasn't over "safety", it was over production cost and concern that the "innovative" compacts were cannibalizing the more profitable larger car lines.
Times have changed tell that to Robert Kearns the inventor of the intermittent wiper circuit, he lost everything family included because he created something other electrical engineers couldn't and refused to sell his patent to ford Chrysler and GM so they just out right stole it with the backing of the government he wouldn't win the rights.to his own invention till he was literally in the poor house GOD BLESS AMERICA
You miss the point, and the reason why it is hard to compete. The industry would have had to compete with Tucker if they did not get government favors. It is the same in every industry today, which is why they tell you that your American dream is dead. They killed it. Since it is individual liberty and our right to do business that is fading away, well---it gets replaced by government control,---or you can call it communism. It fits. communism is the opposite of individual liberty where free people created a free enterprise system. The USA is gone. I don't think we understand the difference well enough to get it back.
He made over 50 cars per the contract, and was ready to start full production at court time. The building he also got from the government, (his biggest mistake by far), was pulled from him breech of contract. If he were under capitalized, he would not have been able to make prototypes and 50 plus cars on schedule per the government agreement before government reneged.
![Would You Fall for It? [ST08]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n94-_yE4IeU/mqdefault.jpg)
Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/twobithistory
Help us Grow! Share our Videos on Reddit (or your Favorite Social Media)
Visit our Website: www.twobithistory.com
Here are my corrections of your history:
1) Min 0:52 Tucker was not a talented salesman turned inventor. There was much more in Tuckers early days, starting fixing cars and selling them, racing with a guy named Henry and winning several championships, (also with rear engine cars), earning one of the first engineering degrees through the mail, and starting out in car companies as a mail carrier, and working up. He may have done some sales, but I don't think that function lasted for long. He wanted to work in every department to learn.
2) Min 2:22 Not a correction, but Patton would have loved the Tucker tank.
3) Min 3:50 Not correcting again, just a comment. Getting the building from the government was the biggest mistake he made and it was pulled from him breech of
contract.
4) Min 4:46 He was an engineer, both in practice and formal. He just never worked as an engineer for a company, (to the best of my knowledge). How important is incremental change when you know what you are doing? The car was good. Maybe the best of its day.
5) Min 6:20 He was such a poor business man, he had to be destroyed by economic fascism. Of course marx would say he was a terrible business man, but the Car and more might be alive today if it were not for economic fascism.
6) Min 8:30 His conspiracy claims "did not work"? That means justice was not done son as the conspiracy is reality. The jury agreed, all of them.
7) 9:14 I will pass on the rest of this opinion. We only have 2 car companies in the land of opportunity today, and outsourcing our production to communism negates anything your brainwashed mind can tell us.
instaBlaster
A smart man ahead of his times ,way ahead of the Big 3 . This was a true great inventor of Automobile safety .
It saddens me every time I think about it. Being (Too) Early, rarely works out...
@@TwoBitHistory He was not "too early". He was destroyed!!!!!!
What is the matter with you?
Tucker was a genius way ahead of it’s time! That’s what the big three and the government didn’t like! I bet you if the tucker car company was being built today if would be like Tesla! A car way ahead than his competitors! I would buy one in heartbeat 💗
It's typical of big corporations. They're so afraid of the little guy who has a new idea. They somehow, for some reason, feel threatened by him.
Nah, Preston's problems were more political than anything. Well, political and financial.
I always loved the line from the movie where Jeff Bridges says something to the effect of "...and I haven't got a dime to build it with!".
That sort of foreshadows the whole ordeal. He should have tried to raise more capital through legitimate ways, probably should've set his sights on a more affordable factory, and definitely should not have made accessories for cars that didn't yet exist.
@@That_AMC_Guy I reckon that makes more sense.
@@jasoncarpp7742 Don't forget, Preston had a lot of friends in Detroit. Many of the folks on his board of Directors came from the Big Three to work for Tucker. Not to mention many parts used on the car came from other suppliers. The door hardware is Kaiser/Willys. The air cleaner is a flathead Cadillac piece. The steering wheels were a gift from Ford until Tucker could produce his own.
Not to mention many of the other pieces sourced from Bendix, Stewart-Warner, Carter, Saginaw and many other Big-Three owned subsidiaries.
Tucker was no fool. Why design your own part when you can use a cheap, plentiful, off-the-shelf piece? All manufacturers do that today; many even swap parts around.
@@That_AMC_Guy true. and it's cost effective to do it that way. Didn't tesla use mercedes or toyota supplied switches on their earlier cars?
@@Mike-jv8bv I'm completely unfamiliar with Tesla cars.
I think two things are undeniable about this story:
1) Preston Tucker wasn't really a savvy businessman
2) the whole investigation/trial was rushed
Very true. Imagine if he wasn’t railroaded? What would cars be like today?
What is a savy business man in your view,---a guy who makes deals with politicians? those are the guys who say he was not a savy business man. Was Ford a savy business man,---or could he hire them? Tucker was a proper business man, with the correct philosophies for a free enterprise free society. That free enterprise free society ended with government intervention, so those savy business men could not really make it in the free market, with guys like Tucker as potential competition.
If you are getting beat in a sport,---just bribe the ref. savy!
@@TwoBitHistory That question is hard to answer. So many factors over time. But I do know this. we drive what government wants us to drive today,---and they really don't want us driving. Gut your catalytic converters, and you will get at least 75,000 more miles from your engine on the average. Restrictive exhaust builds up engine heat a lot.
@@EarthSurferUSA Henry Ford was "savvy" in his HEYDEY of 1900-1925 in terms of building a decent car that literally put the USA on wheels. But it wasn't just the clever engineering that made the Model T relatively cheap to produce, it was Ford's relentless pursuit to make automotive mass production more efficient. He also recognized the skullduggery that went on, and used his profit to vertically integrate so Ford could not be strangled by competitors taking his materials or union organizers, if they couldn't organize Ford itself, could target his critical suppliers. It was Ford vessels plying the Great Lakes that brought iron ore and coal to the Rouge plant. The same plant had its own steel mill. Ford even owned the forestry rights that supplied the wood that was used in car bodies and other parts in those times. He owned shares in rubber plantations abroad and copper mines in Utah and Arizona to ensure electrical parts would keep coming. An analysis conducted by Ford's own industrial engineering staff verified that from arrival of raw materials at the river docks of the Rouge plant to a finished Model T required no more than 33 hours. Even packing crates for shipping parts were designed to be disassembled into frames that went into the cars themselves!
But, as so often happens, Henry Ford got old, and the world changed and he didn't. It was his disenchantment with the FDR administration, especially over their failure to stop union violence in the 1937 strikes, as he saw it, and his Fascist sympathies (he also had ventures in the USSR, including at what became the Kama river tank engine factory) that caused him to make misfire after misfire until he passed on in 1943. Ford BARELY made a profit on its WWII government contracts, while the other outfits were making a "killing" (no pun intended). It was only when grandson Henry Ford II (son of Edsel, and we know what became of his namesake car make) fought off a hostile takeover and took over the reins that Ford made a remarkable comeback.
Tucker was set up by Big gov.and the Big 3 Ford General motor Chrysler.
Very sad. I wonder where car safety and innovation would be today, if Tucker had gone further.
Where did you get your info on that?
The Big Three had nothing to do with Tuckers' demise; matter-of-factly, they helped Tucker by providing off-the-shelf parts! The steering wheel is surplus Lincoln, the inside door hardware is Kaiser-Willys, the tail lights are Dodge. Tuckers two biggest enemies were Otto Kerner and Homer Ferguson. Those two men went out of their way to sabotage Tucker in any way they could. Thirdly, Tucker screwed himself by pissing off the SEC. You can't sell dealerships and parts to cars that don't exist.
There was no conspiracy. It was all politics.
@@That_AMC_Guy I suspect Tuckers biggest enemy was.........Preston Tucker...
@@martyzielinski2469 You know, I've had that conversation with several people, and the most conclusive answer we came up with was: "maybe". From all accounts, he was generally a very likeable man. But everybody becomes a saint when they die.
It's like, when a strong-willed person surrounds themselves with weak-minded people, they may describe him as a leader. But when equally strong-willed people butt heads, they see each-other as a nuisance.
I often wonder if the people who made Preston's life hell were those same equally strong-willed people who wanted their own way and not Preston's. And if you step on strong-willed, powerful toes.... you've just made some interminable enemies.
Homer Ferguson was one of those men. The SEC's lawyer (who's name escapes me at the moment) was another and there was another fellow over at War Assets that didn't like Tucker. Those three very powerful, strong-willed men had it out for ol' Pres for whatever reason.
this guys designs were so far ahead of his time its nuts. Can you imagine if he wouldnt have been murdered what he might have come up with.
He wasn’t murdered.
@@tusharrajvanshi1043 I suspect he was. I think Justice Scalia was murdered also during the obama administration. I had a childhood friend who died as a homeless man, killed by his friend when they got in a drunken fight, (Duane had big problems with that). Scalia mysteriously died at some party as if he was poisoned with dinner, rushed to get embalmed, and no autopsy was done for a Supreme court Judge under fishy circumstances. Duane got an autopsy.
He very well may have been murdered, especially if he wanted to get even legally. I think he was the type of man to make legal moves against those in government who destroyed his company that he spent all his life with. I see him being murdered with a 90% probability. It is disgusting.
One other thing that may point to murder,---is his family was never heard from publicly, (to my knowledge), ever again. He had a big family. None of them told the story. Same with the Scalia family.
A real shame. It could of been a great car company today if the big 3 hadn't been afraid of it.
Not saying cronyism doesn’t still happen, but I feel Tesla in the 1940s or even 1980s, would have probably failed too.
@@TwoBitHistory technically tesla was a failure, according to standard social paradigms. But tesla and Tucker both changed the world with there incites, which is why they were destroyed by the powers of the corporatocricy. They were without the ability innovate and knew it. They had to destroy the Genious's so they could aquire the new technology and make more and more money. Because after all, that's what everyone worships, the mono eye.
@@TwoBitHistory "Not saying cronyism doesn’t still happen"
That is government intervention in our businesses. Show me an industry where that is not crony capitalism today. Even the pot heads gave their industry to government.
I love the Tucker 48 it was a very fine automobile but not to burst everybody's bubble the Tucker 48 was not the first car to have safety glass nor to have safety belts but Tucker wanted to make them to be the industry-standard and not an option
Tuckers don’t have seat belts.
I doubt Tucker had any interest in making safety stuff an industry standard. It was a selling point for him. I wonder if he actually helped open the door for more government regulation though. Just a thought I just had.
Only 177 subscribed and 4247 views (as of 4/19). What a shame, this is a great channel.
Thanks for the kind comments. It takes time to grow a channel, but we’re working on more videos at the moment. Maybe Trader Joe’s or Howard Hughes are in the near future?
He has his propaganda. I can see the premise of things said.
If Honda was able to build a manufacturing dynasty in Japan after WW2, and Tucker was destroyed by congress after WW2,----who really won WW2?
We won the war and lost the peace.
The only American car that inspired me... A US version of the Citroen DS... Both were futuristic cars designed to have a flat 6 engine. Tucker engine in back with rear wheel drive, Citroen front mid engine with front wheel drive.
I wish Tucker and Citroen got together to give the DS the engine it deserved..
The Citroen did have power front disc brakes, power steering, unique suspension, progressive crumple zones and safety cell, aerodynamics, semi automatic gearbox and in 1967 turning and self levelling headlights. It was produced from 1955 to 1975..
The big difference was that Citroen had been mass producing cars from 1919.
The 2CV and GS were also maverick masterpieces...
Andre Citroen was a maverick promoter, a dreamer and a gambler.
For many years the Eiffel Tower was a giant Citroen advertising sign.
Hey.. Another Tucker, but without government, press and competition beating him to a pulp.
Citroen went bankrupt developing the radical 1934 Traction Avant. Michelin bought the company.
Very nearly went bankrupt again with the DS in 1955, and did go bankrupt a second time in 1974 with the CX and SM (Sports Maserati).and Comotor Wankel rotary.
Bought by Peugeot.
Last great cars were the BX, Xantia, XM and C6..
Then got the boring disease..
Now focusing on comfort. Finally.
I recently watched again "Tucker a man and his Dream" and couldn't help but to see all the parallels between what happened to Tucker and what is continuing to happen to Elon Musk. The biggest difference being that Elon had success with start up business before and acquired a fortune with it. Also he has greater transparency through social media as well as the active players against him aren't as powerful as they once were.
Agreed. I think corruption and cronyism still exists, but it is just harder to pull off in the Information Age.
Not to take anything away from Elon Musk, but it seems like the politicians are now in bed with start up companies by giving out tax credits. The established manufacturers are not as powerful today but the politicians are. Cronyism is still a problem.
Musk was also born filthy rich, that's an advantage Tucker didn't have.
Tesla would not be profitable with out government subsidies and favors. I have never even seen one on the road. Nobody gets into that industry, (and many more), with out the blessings of government today. That is why we only have 2 left,--in the land of opportunity.
@@TwoBitHistory It is bigger than ever---because we accepted it.
Political and financial ties will make a difference. Of course a big balance sheet and income statement would be a strong contender too.
Political ties with business is economic fascism, and it should be illegal.
Hi Two Bit History, this is quite informative.
Btw kindly share the 9:10-end Audio File Name and Artist Name.
Times have changed.
That’s the funniest thing in this video.
It is quite hilarious...which what we were going for...
Two Bit History I see what u mean now. Thx.
@@TwoBitHistory Times will change,---but should our liberty change also?
You should do a video about all of the startups that were taken down. Delorean? What about that guy with the carburetor in the 70s that could get mass gas mileage.
Great ideas. I’m going to start looking into it.
I have worked on cars, and engines all my life, from lawnmowers to V12 and V16 Diesel engines! There is not, never has been, and never will be a carburetor that gets a 100 miles per gallon! First off, carburetion can't compete with fuel injection! Second fuel deliver is not the final determination of economy. Mass &weight & velocity and resistance are the final determinant! So if you want to drive a tissue paper box, shaped like a torpedoes, one passenger, single cylinder engine, with a big flywheel, and hit and miss engine, I'll get you a hundred miles to the gallon! Not being snotty, but I have listened to this myth since I was 13.
@@michaelmonaghan2717 You missed the main reason. Gas and air have to be the correct ratio, (stoichiometric mixture, about 13 parts air to 1 part fuel for gas) to not go lean or rich. Less gas means less air needed, and less power. Sure, the carb may get a scooter get 100 mpg if it makes no more than 2hp with a person under 100lbs on it on flat ground. Carboration can compete with fuel injection. It is more sensitive to air quality because the jetting has to be changed for weather conditions, where the engine management can automatically adjust the fuel/air mixture. But a carb does not have all those electronics that the heat (especially the extra engine heat cats can force on the engine). I have a 2013 Jeep with poly designed cats, with heat wrecking havoc on the electronics. I would gladly replace that engine system with a old engine and trans. I actually modify 2-stroke engines for a living, and I respect your professional differences. :)
@@EarthSurferUSA Hence why the 70 mpg, or hell, the 100 mpg carburetors, is a MYTH and a scam. As you point out about the stochiometric equation of the typical Otto four-stroke engine, there's an optimal air-fuel ration, and it's easy to predict how much, under IDEAL conditions, fuel would be required for a given engine speed (mated to the gear box that propels the vehicle), as the engine itself is little more than a self-powered air pump. What also would be "ideal" is that the products of combustion would be just carbon dioxide and water. As you well pointed out, a well-tuned carburetor can deliver fuel economy and performance as a fuel-injection setup, indeed, many "performance" engines are still built with carbs!
The actual "holy grail" of a gasoline or diesel engine would be to construct an "adiabatic" engine, or one that loses no external heat. This would be possible IF materials could be found to provide acceptable wear characteristics as with cast iron and/or aluminum and also endure the considerable temperatures generated during combustion. Furthermore, the engine cycle would have to use a greater amount of the heat available to generate power during the power stroke, and/or recoup it from the exhaust gases (intercooling and turbocharging). The maximum possible efficiency would be achieved when the engine would remain cool to the touch and the exhaust gas would leave at ambient temperature! Would it be worthwhile to try to develop such a fantastic engine? Probably not, the challenges are formidable. BUT...never say "die", who's to say in time what new materials or engine control technology may get closer and closer to that ideal?
The US ended the war facing a return to depression. The economy had achieved full utilisation by exporting its output as war goods funded by war bonds. This obviously stopped with the end of the war. The rest of the world had no US dollars to buy US exports.
The driving motivation for the Marshall Plan was to give Europe dollars to solve this “dollar gap”. (Read Kolko “The Limits of Power”).
The movie, though entertaining, spewed a bunch of MYTHS about why the Tucker failed.
There were quite a few competitors to the "Big Three", and in fact, Ford, thanks to mismanagement by the "old man", who was well behind the times and mentally ailing, was almost on the verge of bankruptcy itself post-war. The US was transitioning back to peacetime production, and getting materials was a problem for all car makers, not just Tucker.
But even with a $20M IPO in 1947, it just wasn't enough to launch an entirely new auto company, especially with just ONE product. Preston Tucker may have been a brilliant engineer, but he simply did not understand the automotive business. He would have been better off to sell his idea to an existing firm that was "hungry", like Hudson, and be part of its development team, than do it on his own. It was simply impossible to build and market what was, for its time, a rolling science fair, and had he somehow solved the considerable financial and managerial problems his ill-fated venture faced and actually been able to mass produce the Tucker '48, it likely would have ended up an automotive "one-hit wonder"...i.e., people with money (the car was not cheap, and given the lack of economy of scale, it couldn't be) who could appreciate it's features would have bought them...for about two to three years, tops. Then, with Detroit finally able to re-tool in the post-war era and put out new models, the Tucker Corp. would have had to upgrade the '48 and/or develop new models. Given its huge financial challenges, that would have been unlikely. So either Tucker would have gone under anyway, or it would have been bought up by a competitor, as the other "minor" makers were also being squeezed out by the "Big Three" and were looking to merge and/or acquire in order to survive. Who's to say a briefly successful Tucker 48 might not have continued as part of, say, Studebaker-Packard, or AMC when it was formed from the merger of Nash-Kelvinator and Hudson in 1954?
It's easy to swallow the "Big Corporations are EVIL, man.." mantra, but the truth is that the entire idea to attempt to break into the car business was hare-brained from the start. Yes, the Tucker 48 was very much ahead of its time, and though individually many of its "innovations" had been tried before, none were ever put forth in an innovative package that was Preston Tucker's car. The only problem was...it took a LOT more money to do what he wanted to do than he could raise, and the prospects of the Tucker Corporation turning a profit were, well, kinda dismal.
"He did not understand the automotive business"? Let me define that, since you missed it.
No, he did not understand economic fascism existed in the USA,---or else he never would have gotten the building from government. You do know that building was taken from him breech of contract tight? You do know that if government did not get involved with business, that the big 3 could not have gotten congress to destroy Tucker, and they would have had to compete, right? You do understand that Honda created a manufacturing dynasty after WW2 in Japan right? Who really won WW2?
@@EarthSurferUSA You disregard the actual history and facts involved, as evidenced by your citation of "economic fascism". Such is the self-delusion of most leftists.
Had you ever considered (1) HOW, if the bureaucrats, and "Corporate Fascists" were doing all they could to "torpedo" (pun intended) the Tucker '48, how did Tucker get the Chicago Dodge plant in the first place? This impressive facility had been built to produce aircraft engines, and NOT, as the film erroneously assumed, Dodge trucks for the war effort. It also was NOT the "largest auto factory" of its time, though it was for a time the largest single building in terms of its footprint in the world. (2) Second, how was Tucker able to raise the capital AND hire the talent that he had? The film mentions nothing of the efforts of George Lawson, who was the initial designer for the 'Tucker 48 and responsible for its rear-engine layout. Also, Alex Tremulis wasn't just some "kid", recently discharged from the Army, looking for his big break with Tucker, he already had an impressive resume in industry when Tucker hired him away from a prominent industrial design firm.
The "Big Three" weren't so much concerned about destroying Tucker, he was little more than a gadfly. They were more concerned about taking out the "small fry", as the fictional gangster Bela Oxmyx of Star Trek's "A Piece of the Action" deemed his unmentioned lesser rivals. Ford, which at the time had slipped to well behind GM and at times Chrysler, was financially on the ropes and ripe for a takeover ("White Knight"). The remaining well-known names, Nash, Hudson, Studebaker, Packard, Willys-Overland, and Kaiser, were no longer viable of themselves, but had they combined (Nash and Hudson DID, and survived as AMC until 1987, and Packard and Studebaker also did, but only until 1963, as they departed the auto business altogether in favor of their other ventures), but a combination of them ALL, along with the maverick Tucker, might have proved a formidable "Fourth", much as FOX has proved against ABC, CBS, and NBC.
It's wasn't so much that the "Big Three" conspired against Tucker, it was that the Truman administration was still continuing both rationing of foods and consumer goods well after the war, ostensibly to curb inflation and/or prevent a post-war depression. In reality, it was about having a political stranglehold on American industry, so there might have been something to the "Fascism" you mentioned, just not as you supposed it was. For example, the American homemaker still had to use ration stamps to buy sugar until November 1947! It was in this atmosphere that opportunists like MI Senator Homer S. Ferguson could wield much power and inflict damage to those that didn't support them or got in their way. Please keep in mind that the GOP had captured both House and Senate in the 1946 mid-term elections and were quite willing to turn the tables on their political and corporate rivals. Tucker was simply one of the casualties of this backlash, though I'm certain that even had he not been politically persecuted, his car make would, at minimum, have been bought out, likely by Nash or Packard, in an effort to acquire the line and the name, or have gone under anyway.
I gotta give pressure from the big three a no sale , There were nine major auto companies post war and materials were hard to get, the steering wheel in a Tucker were left over Lincoln parts
Chrysler was still hung over from its advanced car of the future ( The Air flow) Ford was undergoing massive restructuring after Henry died, and GM could have easily just backed a dump truck full of cash and bought him out , The SEC did seem to have a personal beef with him, often left untold is the prosecutor later went to jail, and by 1950 the suspension and transmission design were not yet final and Tuckers had major over heating issues
Tucker was rear engine, with swing axles, much like the Corvair.
It was also Unsafe At Any Speed, (thank you Ralph Nader),
and could have led to safety legislation earlier than the seventies.
Ralph was a quack who would say anything for publicity.
He is not beaten his idea is still in use today..Big 3 followed it..Tesla lives the spirit
Tesla is an electric car that progressive/communist government wants us to drive. They get favors. Like any green company, (which government also subsidizes to exist), Tesla would not exist on it's own.
I remember as a kid the big deal when he set up his works in what is now Ford City. As I might remember he was selling products that he really did not have.
He made the cars per the contract, and they exist. Looks like fake news was believed a lot back then too. Thanks a lot. Your generation should have revolted, but like today on the TV, we don't understand what we are looking at.
You don't have to be smart and everything to be smart in something spectacular like Tucker was you hire people who do the job for you that are a little smarter in that area I wish to God Tucker had survived he really was magnificent
If we forget Tucker's legal issues and any possible collusion from the Big 3 and just look at Tucker's car company itself, it would have died by the mid-1950s. He was entering the car market with little capital at a time when the Big 3 not only already had deep amounts of amassed capital, but were going to begin an era of enormous profitability for them. He was simply trying to source steering wheels from Ford and engines from Franklin when Ford, GM, and Chrysler were all already working on developing new technologies like electric windows, cruise control, and air conditioning.
He had one design for one sedan. If he'd have been able to go into full production by the time the first full production Tucker 48 rolled off the line, his designers would already need to have finalized an update to that design ready to go in a couple years. Then he'd need a coupe, a truck, and other variations. There was no way he'd be able to make a long term stand in the market without growing his product line substantially, and quickly.
Besides, his timing was probably the worst. In 1948 most production cars still had inline 6 or 8 cylinder motors. They were not very powerful, so at the time of production Tucker's Franklin-sourced flat 6 was a competitive motor.
But the Big 3 were ready for horsepower wars with their V8s by 1955 and there's no way Tucker would have had a competitive V8 engine developed himself by that time. Absolutely no way. He'd have been left in the dust by 1955 when GM's 265 Chevy small block, Ford's 239 Y-block, and Chrysler's Hemi would have all left the Tucker in the dust.
There's also the matter of that Cord/Auburn derived transmission. It's very temperamental and experts suggest Tucker would have had a major recall issue if he'd have gone to full production with it. It uses cables and electric solenoids to "pre-select" each gear, then you engage the gear by hitting the clutch after pre-selecting it. It's a very overly complicated system when at the time a simple 3 or 4 speed mechanical manual with a clutch would have been perfectly fine and reliable.
America is as good the government let's us.
Preston Tucker won the case thrown on.him by the FEDS on answer to the big 3 request, Ford, Chrysler, and GM. Tucker got help from another FEDS victim, Howard Huges and built engines designed for Hughes Helicopters for the Tucker 48 car. After winning the case, Preston Tucker died of cardiac arrest.
I am not so sure about that last sentence. I think there is a high probability that if he was seeking legal action after his case, to go after the state pricks who destroyed his company,---they probably would have had him killed. A big family too, not a peep about the story from them, like a gag.
Study the Tatra Car Co, Tucker "borrowed" a lot from them, as it VW group........
There's a reason the big 3 became and stayed the big 3. Power...
They knew they would have to spend a bajillion dollars to implement all of the things he was including. It was easier to use the government to take him down.
The Big Three will always be around I know Dodge is a dud motor goes out on you on the freeway always disliked that awful ugly car !
He was DECADES ahead of his time! Ge actually CARED about innovation and safety. The "BIG 3" were correct to fear him and his innovations. They would ALL eventually be adopted as required standard equipment by the US government in ALL USA made cars.
He was not ahead of his time. He was into car racing with a guy named Henry Miller, and they won quite a few championships before Miller died in a crash. There were components that others cars did not have,---but nothing was new, (except the turning head light). The government should have stayed out of it.
Ripping off venture capitalists with a concept for a new app has made lots of con men rich in the 2000's! Yay!
He made the cars, found innocent of all counts in court. He fulfilled his obligations, and the building to taken from him breech of contract. He was not ripping off anybody,---but you got your liberty stolen from you. You can cheer all you want---into communism. Sue your schools,---or your life will suck.
every one of the 48's had donor parts from the Big 3 (motor/suspension parts from GM and Chrysler, steering wheels from Ford)...hard to buy in to the conspiracy theory. Also, his bids for the steel mills were rejected because he hadnt paid rent on the factory and was in violation of the rental agreement when he placed the bids.
I hear that, but I have seen no evidence of it. Even if some is true, I am sure those smaller decisions were not made by the heads, the chairs. Back then, a foreman could have made those decisions.
If not ruined by RED TAPE WE ALL WOULD BE DRIVING A TUCKER TODAY. THE DESIGN WAS WEDGE SHAPE WOULD GO TO THE RIGHT OR LEFT AND NEVER HEAD ON. THE CYCLOPS LIGHT WOULD FOLLOW THE CAR AROUND BENDS. 28, MILES TO A GALLON. INNOVATIVE----TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.
Ford actually provided the steering wheels for the Tucker!
So what. The chairs did not make that small decision.
The world is controled by people who want it all! So even if you invent something that is ground breaking it will be put under if it takes money from them in the long run.
A few years ago they had a Tucker gathering at Pebble Beach. While on the Tour D'Elegance, one of them dropped an axle (do a GOOGLE search for the pics of the axle on the road). I stopped to help in my lowly (but fully drivable) '55 Pontiac, and the owner (I believe the pres. of the club) was rude as could be. I took great joy in leaving them in a cloud of non-emissions controlled exhaust. That experience aside, I think Tuckers are one of the most over rated cars. If they'd been made in larger numbers, no one would pay any more attention to them then any other production American car of the time.
You mean GM would be happy to have Tucker come along with a revolutionary car, the biggest mfg plant in the world and tons of excitement? I'm sure they would do nothing about it with their politicians.
'just finished watching the Tucker movie - free on utube
I'm sure everyone involved has an opinion on Tucker / gov. / big 3
at this point we just don't know
but soon the truth will be shouted from the mountain tops
(this is in reference to Judgement Day / be ready)
We know, if we know what we are looking at. The results of government in bed with business is over 100 years old in the USA. We think it is the way it has to be, and we don't know what we are looking at. The USA started this way, based on individual liberty protected by law, and free people creating the free enterprise system. It was almost Laissez-Faire, (no regulation, no income taxes, and a good court system to keep people from screwing each other.). But government still had some control, and it grows until our liberty and right to do business fades away. The result eventually is government control over everything, or communism. That is what we are looking at. I say we are about 90% into communism today, in relation to Laissez-Faire and a free society.
This situation has been demonstrated too many times. There is no such thing as a true free enterprise system. Wall Street and the SEC are all that matters.
Government control of industry is what matters to government. It is communism.
9:25 on was not necessary
The Corvair taught the American auto manufacturers that the rear-engine, rear-drive arrangement is a horrible, no good, very bad idea, owing to the mass bias and the handling characteristics that result. These characteristics might have been tolerated had drivers been taught what to do when the tail wags the dog, but they weren't. So if the Torpedo had been put in mass production, manufacturers and drivers would have learned their lesson about rear-engine cars a decade sooner.
Never thought of that! Though love him or hate him, Nader did try to expose the folly of the Corvair, albeit after the fact.
@@TwoBitHistory The Corvair would have been safer than the typical car of the era had they just turned the seats around. Then you have a front-engine, front-drive car, millions of these have been built and drivers of poor to average ability do well in them
The Tucker never made it into mass production that consumer experience may have mirrored what happened with the Corvair. However, the assertion that the RR configuration is a bad idea is utter NONSENSE. Ever heard of a little car from Germany called the VW Beetle?
@@TwoBitHistory Ralph Nader is a political HACK and a glib con artist, who wrote to sell books after he couldn't get hired as an attorney by any reputable law firm out of law school. His "findings" about the Corvair were disproven. The man never even owned a car nor even had a driver's license, so that anyone took him seriously seems incredulous.
It should also be kept in mind that GM was already taken over by the "suits", who put an end to the automotive innovations, not only of the Corvair itself, but also similar product lines like the Pontiac Tempest, Buick Skylark, and Olds F-85. John Delorean had taken the Chevy Six which was to be the base engine for the then mid-sized Pontiac Tempest, and modified it into an belt-driven OHC Six that rivalled V8s for power, being well ahead of its time. Once DeLorean was "kicked upstairs" to head Chevrolet, that engine was nixed as well. Only two model years after the Corvair debuted, Chevy had "gone back to the drawing board" and put out the Compact Chevy II (later became the Nova), with a more conventional FR layout with the Chevy Six (there was even a 153 cube Four based on that Six available) as standard and later the famed Chevy Small Block V8. The concern wasn't over "safety", it was over production cost and concern that the "innovative" compacts were cannibalizing the more profitable larger car lines.
@@selfdo The rear-motor design has lately been vindicated: My BMW I3 has a 47/53% weight distribution and the handling is terrific.
Times have changed tell that to Robert Kearns the inventor of the intermittent wiper circuit, he lost everything family included because he created something other electrical engineers couldn't and refused to sell his patent to ford Chrysler and GM so they just out right stole it with the backing of the government he wouldn't win the rights.to his own invention till he was literally in the poor house GOD BLESS AMERICA
That is the kind of integrity that Americans lack today. I don't think there is anybody alive who has the integrity of Robert Kearns.
Or Robert Looman...
Why couldn't tucker sue the SEC for damages and loss of income ?
I suspect he was going to, and probably could have found a legal team to help him back then, (not now). There is a good chance he was murdered IMO.
Poor man never. A had. Chance after BIG 3 seen his ideals they shut him down even money was king back then
You miss the point, and the reason why it is hard to compete. The industry would have had to compete with Tucker if they did not get government favors. It is the same in every industry today, which is why they tell you that your American dream is dead. They killed it. Since it is individual liberty and our right to do business that is fading away, well---it gets replaced by government control,---or you can call it communism. It fits. communism is the opposite of individual liberty where free people created a free enterprise system. The USA is gone. I don't think we understand the difference well enough to get it back.
Forget the conspiracy theory. Tucker was woefully undercapitalized. The most common reason for biz failure
It can’t be both?
He made over 50 cars per the contract, and was ready to start full production at court time. The building he also got from the government, (his biggest mistake by far), was pulled from him breech of contract. If he were under capitalized, he would not have been able to make prototypes and 50 plus cars on schedule per the government agreement before government reneged.
Such a beautiful design compared to the horrendous , grotesque designs of the big three in that era.
3 letter agencies- at there best
Two Bit History: "...it is much harder to hide from the public..."
me: "Rofl 🙂😁😄😆😅🤣😂🤤...lol...lmfa.....ha ha ha..."
I stopped the video at the word "conspiracy"....
Not defeating,